Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by enumerating what the response contains (plan, supervised/autopilot mode, articles used this month) and the keys available for subsequent calls, though there is no output schema to corroborate it and no mention of failure behavior for an invalid or expired key.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'Call this FIRST' so the routing instruction is read first. The organization parenthetical is dense but every listed field earns its place; only the run-on length of the second sentence costs a point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so field-by-field, and it supplies the cross-tool `org` convention. It stops short of covering error cases or confirming the response is static versus cached, but an agent has enough to call and use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add meaning about the `org` parameter convention that sibling tools accept, which is not expressed anywhere in this tool's schema and helps the agent interpret and reuse the returned accountId/website/name values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific introspection verb and its exact returns: identity of the key, admin status, and the user's organizations with per-org fields. The 'Call this FIRST' framing and the organization context make it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like seovyn_status or seovyn_create_org.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this FIRST,' giving an unambiguous sequencing rule rather than an implied one. It also explains the downstream convention that organization-scoped tools accept `org` (accountId, website, or name) and default to the current organization, which tells the agent how to use this tool's output.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.